Latest news with #KathleenHallJamieson
Newsweek
03-07-2025
- Health
- Newsweek
What Most American Women Don't Know When It Comes to Breast Cancer Screening
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. More than half of American women may be confused about when to start having regular mammograms to screen for breast cancer. This is the finding of a survey by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, which revealed the greatest uncertainty among younger women. Women with an average risk of breast cancer should start getting screened every two years from age 40 onwards, according to the latest guidance issued in April last year from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of medical experts. Mammograms enable doctors to detect cancer early, before symptoms become visible. Regular screening has been shown to decrease the risk of dying from breast cancer. Stock image of a woman undergoing a mammogram. Stock image of a woman undergoing a mammogram. peakSTOCK/iStock / Getty Images Plus "Confusion can arise when medical guidance about detection of treatment changes, as it has in recent years with mammograms," said Annenberg Public Policy Center director Kathleen Hall Jamieson in a statement. Recommendations have previously shifted from 40 up to 50 and then back down to 40 again. Confusing matters is how some medical groups offer different guidance. The American Cancer Society, for example, suggests that women start screening between 40–44, have mammograms annually from 45–54, and then every other year after that. Jamieson added: "Our data suggest that the recommendation that such screening ordinarily start at 40 years old is not yet widely enough known." A plot showing the results of the survey. A plot showing the results of the survey. Annenberg Public Policy Center The survey—which was conducted back in late April this year on a sample of more than 1,653 U.S. adults—found that only 49 percent of respondents knew that women are recommended to start having mammograms every other year from the age of 40 onward. Meanwhile, 10 percent said that screening should begin at age 20, 21 percent said age 30, 9 percent said age 50 and 11 responded that they weren't sure when they should start. (Each number is rounded to the nearest 1 percent, which accounts for why these figures do not add up to 100 percent.) Breaking down responses by age, the survey results suggest that there is a greater uncertainty on this topic among younger women. Specifically, only 37 percent of women aged 18–29 knew the correct age to start screening. In contrast, 72 percent of women aged 40–49, 63 percent aged 30–39 and 59 percent 50–74 knew that the current recommended age is 40. Alongside this, 16 percent of women aged 18–29 and 11 percent aged 30–39 reported that they were not at all sure when to begin regular screening; this figure was just one percent for women aged between 40–49. Among the 18–29 age group, the most commonly reported incorrect age for when to begin mammography was 30 (selected by 27 percent of women); this is a decade earlier than recommended. However, the most common misconception among those aged 30–39 (that is, approaching the recommended starting age of 40) was 50 years old—a decade later than current recommendations. Do you have a tip on a health story that Newsweek should be covering? Do you have a question about mammograms? Let us know via health@ Reference Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. (2025). ASAPH W24 mammogram items.
Boston Globe
13-04-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
The many ways Kennedy is undermining vaccines
The Health and Human Services Department cut billions of dollars to state health agencies, including funds needed to modernize state programs for childhood immunization. Kennedy said in a televised interview Wednesday that he was unaware of this widely reported development. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The Food and Drug Administration canceled an open meeting on flu vaccines with scientific advisers, later holding it behind closed doors. A top official paused the agency's review of Novavax's COVID-19 vaccine. In a televised interview last week, Kennedy said falsely that similarly created vaccines don't work against respiratory viruses. Related : Advertisement Some scientists said they saw a pattern: an effort to erode support for routine vaccination, and for the scientists who have long held it up as a public health goal. 'This is a simultaneous process of increasing the likelihood that you will hear his voice and decreasing the likelihood that you'll hear other voices,' Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center, said of Kennedy. Advertisement He is 'decertifying other voices of authority,' she said. HHS disagreed that Kennedy was working against vaccines. 'Secretary Kennedy is not anti-vaccine; he is pro-safety,' Andrew Nixon, a department spokesperson said in a statement. 'His focus has always been on ensuring that vaccines are rigorously tested for efficacy and safety.' The statement continued, 'We are taking action so that Americans get the transparency they deserve and can make informed decisions about their health.' After attending the funeral of an unvaccinated child who died of measles in West Texas last Sunday, Kennedy endorsed the measles vaccine on the social platform X as 'the most effective way to prevent the spread of measles.' But he has also described vaccination as a personal choice with poorly understood risks and suggested that miracle treatments were readily available. On Sunday, he praised two local doctors on social media who have promoted dubious, potentially harmful, treatments for measles. Related : Even as cases of measles in the United States have surged past 600 in 22 jurisdictions, Kennedy has claimed in a recent interview that the measles vaccine causes deaths every year (untrue); that it causes encephalitis, blindness and 'all the illnesses that measles itself causes' (untrue); and that the vaccine's effect wanes so dramatically that older adults are 'essentially unvaccinated' (untrue). According to an email obtained by The New York Times, HHS intends to revise its webpages to include statements like 'The decision to vaccinate is a personal one' and 'People should also be informed about the potential adverse events associated with vaccines.' (Vaccines are already administered only after patients provide informed consent, as required by law.) Advertisement Tensions with mainstream experts came into sharp focus last week, when Dr. Peter Marks, the top vaccine regulator, resigned under pressure from the FDA. 'It has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies,' Marks said in his resignation letter. Kennedy's position on vaccines has raised alarm for decades. But it has become particularly notable now, against a backdrop of rising skepticism of vaccines and worsening outbreaks of measles and bird flu, experts said. The MMR vaccine -- a combination product to prevent measles, mumps and rubella that has been available since 1971 -- has long been a target of anti-vaccine campaigns because of the disproved theory that it can cause autism. Kennedy has said that he would like to revisit the issue, in part to assuage parents' fears that the vaccines are unsafe. Related : But he has hired David Geier to reexamine the data. Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., a doctor and the chair of the Senate Health Committee, has sharply criticized the decision to spend tax dollars testing a discredited hypothesis even as the administration is cutting billions for other research. 'If we're pissing away money over here,' he said last month, 'that's less money that we have to actually go after the true reason.' The refusal to accept scientific consensus is 'disturbing, because then we get into very strange territory where it's somebody's hunch that this does or doesn't happen, or does or doesn't work,' said Stephen Jameson, president of the American Association of Immunologists. In interviews, Kennedy has downplayed risks of measles and emphasized what he sees as the benefits of infection. Advertisement 'Everybody got measles, and measles gave you protected lifetime protection against measles infection -- the vaccine doesn't do that,' he said in an interview on Fox News. Two doses of the MMR vaccine do provide decades-long immunity. And while immunity from the infection may last a lifetime, 'people also suffer the consequences of that natural infection,' Jameson said. One consequence was discovered just a few years ago: A measles infection can destroy the immune system's memory of other invading pathogens, leaving the body vulnerable to them again. Measles kills roughly 1 in every 1,000 infected people, and 11% of those infected this year have been hospitalized, many of them children younger than 5, according to the CDC. Two girls, ages 6 and 8, died in West Texas. Related : By contrast, side effects after vaccination are uncommon. But Kennedy has suggested that people should apprise themselves of the risks before opting for the shot. The phrasing implies that 'if you are more fully informed, you might make a different decision,' said Jamieson, of the Annenberg center. Doctors have long expected health secretaries and the CDC to urge widespread vaccination unequivocally amid an outbreak, and in the past they have. But Kennedy has spoken enthusiastically about cod liver oil, a steroid and an antibiotic that are not standard therapies. Some of those treatments may be making children more sick. 'The messaging I'm seeing is focused on potential treatments for measles,' said Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the infectious disease committee for the American Academy of Pediatrics. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spoke during his Senate confirmation hearing on Jan. 29. KENNY HOLSTON/NYT At his confirmation hearing, Kennedy promised that he would not change the CDC's childhood vaccination schedule. About two weeks later, he announced a new commission that would scrutinize it. Advertisement The schedule is based on recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, a panel of medical experts who review safety and effectiveness data, potential interactions with other drugs and the ideal timing to maximize protection. At his confirmation hearing, Kennedy claimed that 97% of ACIP members had financial conflicts of interest. He has long held, without evidence, that federal regulators are compromised and are hiding information about the risks of vaccines. 'It's frankly false,' said O'Leary, who serves as a liaison to the committee from the pediatric academy. Kennedy's statistic came from a 2009 report that found that 97% of disclosure forms had errors, such as missing dates or information in the wrong section. In fact, ACIP members are carefully screened for major conflicts of interest, and they cannot hold stocks or serve on advisory boards or speaker bureaus affiliated with vaccine manufacturers. On the rare occasion that members have indirect conflicts of interest -- for example, if an institution at which they work receives money from a drug manufacturer -- they disclose the conflict and recuse themselves from related votes. The committee's votes were public and often heavily debated. 'When I was CDC director, people flew in from Korea and all over the world to observe the ACIP meetings, because they were a model of transparency,' said Dr. Thomas R. Frieden, who led the agency from 2009 to 2017. Kennedy has repeatedly promised greater transparency and accountability, but he has proposed ending public comment on health policies. His department canceled a meeting of the ACIP in February at which members were set to discuss vaccines for meningitis and flu, rescheduling it for April. Advertisement The department also canceled a meeting to discuss the seasonal flu vaccine. Officials met later without the agency's scientific advisers. 'After all that conversation about how they want to be transparent, one of the first things he does is take things behind closed doors and diminish the amount of public input we're getting,' said Dr. Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. At his confirmation hearing, Kennedy repeated a fringe theory that Black Americans should not receive the same vaccines as others because they 'have a much stronger reaction.' Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Md., who is Black, admonished him for his 'dangerous' opinion: 'Your voice would be a voice that parents would listen to.' Two weeks later, at a clinic for teenage mothers in Denver, a 19-year-old woman refused all vaccines for herself and her 1-year-old son -- including the measles and chickenpox shots he was supposed to have that day. She told the pediatrician, Dr. Hana Smith, who described the incident, that she had read online that vaccines were bad for people with more melanin in their skin. There are reams of evidence to the contrary. Still, it quickly became clear to Smith that nothing was going to change her patient's mind. 'No matter how much information I can give to the contrary on it, the damage is already done,' Smith said. Misinformation is particularly difficult to counter, Smith said, 'when it's someone that has a leadership position, especially within the health care system.' This article originally appeared in
Yahoo
11-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
A Shocking Number Still Don't Know The Risk of Taking Aspirin Each Day
A new report shows that almost half of the adults in the US aren't aware of the latest health guidelines around aspirin, which claim the risks of a daily low-dose aspirin outweigh the benefits. This comes from a survey of 1,771 people by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in Pennsylvania, on behalf of independent market research company SSRS. Respondents were quizzed on aspirin use and knowledge in November 2024. In the past, aspirin's blood-thinning properties had led doctors to recommend a small daily dose of around 80 milligrams be taken by healthy, elderly patients to reduce their risk of heart attack or stroke. That changed in 2019, when the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association (AHA) brought out new guidelines. The updated advice was that the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding from daily aspirin doses wasn't worth the reduced risk associated with cardiovascular disease and related issues. "The most important way to prevent atherosclerotic vascular disease, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation is to promote a healthy lifestyle throughout life," state the guidelines. "Aspirin should be used infrequently in the routine primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease because of lack of net benefit." More than five years on, a number of people have yet to receive the message. As well as the 48 percent of respondents who still thought the effects of a daily dose of aspirin did more good than harm, another 39 percent weren't sure. People in the youngest bracket (aged 18 to 39) were the most likely to know a daily aspirin is generally not recommended for most individuals. Those in the oldest bracket (aged over 60) were least likely to know – only 7 percent of this age group knew the drawbacks to aspirin outweigh the benefits, perhaps because for much of their lives, they've been told the opposite. Studies have shown severe internal bleeding can be a consequence of repeatedly popping aspirin, interfering with process that protect the stomach's lining and potentially making inflammation and damage more likely. However, the medical advice varies depending on your health history. For those who are known to be at an increased risk of heart problems, or those who have had a heart attack or stroke in the past, aspirin might be considered worth the risks in those cases. The best advice you can follow is to consult your doctor before making any kind of change in your medication and ask them to check the latest guidelines on everything from aspirin to diet (which changes more often than you might think). "Habits backed by conventional wisdom and the past advice of health care providers are hard to break," says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center and this survey. "Knowing whether taking a low-dose aspirin daily is advisable or not for you is vital health information." There's Never Been a More Dangerous Time to Use Street Drugs. Here's Why. New Strain of Bird Flu in Nevada Reveals a Concerning Mutation Radical Study Proposes a Single Cause to Explain Alzheimer's Disease
Yahoo
04-02-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Many Americans misguided about daily aspirin, survey finds
Many Americans don't see anything wrong with taking daily low-dose aspirin, even though experts have concluded its risks outweigh its benefits, a new survey has found. Nearly half (48%) of people incorrectly think that the benefits of taking low-dose aspirin daily to reduce the risk of heart attack or stroke outweigh the risks, according to the survey from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. "Habits backed by conventional wisdom and the past advice of health care providers are hard to break," Kathleen Hall Jamieson, the center's director, said in a news release. "Knowing whether taking a low-dose aspirin daily is advisable or not for you is vital health information," she added. For years, healthy seniors were advised to take low-dose aspirin to reduce heart attack and stroke risk. The rationale was that aspirin acts as a blood thinner, reducing the risk that a blood clot could cause a heart attack or stroke by clogging an artery. But in 2019, the leading heart groups -- the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association -- reversed that recommendation in a set of new guidelines. The groups concluded that daily aspirin for healthy seniors 70 and older wasn't worth the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. "If you're over 70, taking aspirin to prevent a first heart attack or stroke could do more harm than good," the AHA now says on its website. Aspirin still is recommended for people with diagnosed heart disease who don't have an increased risk of bleeding. This updated guidance has failed to break through decades of advice supporting daily low-dose aspirin, the poll found. Nearly 1 in 5 U.S. adults who have no personal or family history of heart problems report routinely taking low-dose aspirin. According to survey results: • 10% say they take it "basically every day" • 6% take it "a few times a month" • 2% take it "a few times a week" Younger adults were more likely than older folks to correctly report that the risks of aspirin outweigh the benefits, the survey showed. About 29% of 18- to 29-year-olds with no personal or family history of heart disease correctly said the risks of daily aspirin outweigh benefits, compared with 11% of those 40 to 59 and 7% of those 60 and older, researchers found. That's likely because the younger folks haven't been exposed as much to the outdated guidance supporting aspirin use, researchers said. The survey involved 1,771 people polled Nov. 14 to 24, 2024, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.3 percentage points. More information The American Heart Association has more on low-dose aspirin. Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.
